HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 27, 2005 Basically, my articles are largely statements of facts. I am not brokering in rumors, guesses, conspiracy theories, party rhetoric or libels. When I say that there is no dependable evidence to corroborate the existence of Jesus, or that black criminality is greater than white, or that the most of the problems in the Middle East are due to the infiltration of Jews, or that George W. Bush has lied repeatedly, I am not tossing up a topic for debate. I am not offering a hunch to see what others think of the idea. I am not sending up a trial balloon to see what sort of reaction it will provoke. I am not pronouncing a possible explanation that bears further study. I am merely stating a fact. What I am saying is as well-founded as the statement that the Amazon is in Brazil or that Los Angeles is in California. Does someone stating that Paris is in France have to defend his views from people who say that Paris is in Australia or that there is no Paris? Does someone saying Buenos Aires is in Argentina have to listen patiently white others try to debate, refute or rebut. If he’s a polite person, he may give then the floor for a minute or two, but he’s not going to spend all day proving that Buenos Aires is in Argentina, especially to people who have never been there. Those who trot out the same old lame feints, evasions, nonsense, generalizations, propaganda and vituperation that are the tools of those who contend against the truth don’t deserve a hearing. Should I listen to an obstreperous Bush-backer who says that Bush never lies? Should I listen to a man who calls the truth a lie because the utterer of the truth belonged to the other party? Should I listen to a debater that makes venomous personal attacks on everyone and his brother? These people hardly every come up with hard facts, like statistics and references to trustworthy authorities. They generalize about Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, neocons, paleocons, libertarians, etc. If a paleocon says Paris is in France, does that make it false, merely because somebody doesn’t like paleocons, whatever on earth they are? Or if liberals say that the Amazon is in Brazil, am I to disagree because some intemperate hothead hates liberals. I’m not interested in liberals and paleocons. All I am concerned with is the truth, A fundamental inability to be impartial, fair and honest about things religious and political has been demonstrated on this website repeatedly by Ron Lewis, Skip Toomaloo, Dr. Brooks Mick, Michael John McCrae, Edward Abraham, Craig Chamberlain and others, including, most recently, Mark Gelbart. All of these people resort to dodges, subterfuges, vituperation and lies, conceived apparently with no other end in mind than to appear to have won debates, regard of the falsity or truth of the issue. But what I am seeking is the truth. If such people are satisfied with these idle little games, I am not. I don’t care about the debate. Illustrative of what I am talking about is the reply by Dr. Mick to my assertion that George W. Bush ignored the revelations that the evidence supporting the existence of WMD in Iraq was flawed. He parried by asking, in effect, “How could Bush have heeded the revelations, when they came only after the invasion?” When I replied by referencing two articles that proved the revelations came before the invasion, Dr. Mick responded by saying that he meant “the preponderance of the evidence”. In other words, since he could no longer say that the revelations came only after the invasion, he changed his argument by suggesting that the revelations that were prior to the invasion were outweighed by the ones that came only later. Even if I could count revelations to show that the preponderance came before the invasion, Dr. Mick would just resort to the argument that Bush didn’t lie, but just made an honest mistake in judgment. Then what about the boast that the WMD had been found? Was this another mistake in judgment? What lies behind this seeming inflexibility is some sort of partisan or ethnic loyalty that cares little for truth, integrity or decency. Maybe Dr. Mick, as a physician, so probably of the upper middle class, feels that Republicans are best for his own interests, even if it means approving the genocide of Arabs or the ruin of foreign nations. The others I named all engage in the same inane juvenilia, but I won’t discuss each and every one separately. ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
